Smith v. Caldwell
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock' County. The contention of appellant is that these facts raise three main questions and justify the following conclusions, to wit: 1. That the writing and transaction set forth in the complaint is a pure and simply guaranty; 2. That it is a collateral undertaking to pay the debt of another, without extinguishing the principal debt, and is within the statutes of fraud; and that it cannot be varied, altered, modified or explained in parol;…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock' County. The contention of appellant is that these facts raise three main questions and justify the following conclusions, to wit: 1. That the writing and transaction set forth in the complaint is a pure and simply guaranty; 2. That it is a collateral undertaking to pay the debt of another, without extinguishing the principal debt, and is within the statutes of fraud; and that it cannot be varied, altered, modified or explained in parol; 3. That it is a contract utterly without a consideration, affirmatively appearing from the complaint, and is therefore…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, C. J.
— Plaintiff sued defendant to recover the sum of $500, claimed to be due and owing from defendant to plaintiff. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the district court, and, from said judgment and the order overruling motion for new trial, this appeal is taken. The facts as they appear in the record are substantially as follows: Plaintiff held the note of one Garrett Sullivan for the sum of $500, which she had left in the hands of her brother James Burns for collection. Sullivan was about to leave the state, and Burns insisted upon Ms paying or securing said note; otherwise, he should have him…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sherer v. RubedewIdaho Supreme Court · 1905